Ex Parte Mory et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2009

10487734 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BENOIT MORY and FRANCK LAFFARGUE
____________________

Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided:1 June 30, 2009
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative
Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention is a system and method
directed to forming a question to be transmitted to a search engine while
multimedia content is being used by a user (Spec. 1, ll. 4-6).

Exemplary Claim(s)
Claim 5 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
5. A method of formulating a question intended to be transmitted
to a search engine while a user is using a multimedia content, said
multimedia content being described in a document that contains
descriptions, the method comprising the acts of:

selecting by the user in said multimedia content,

extracting from the multimedia content one or more context data
relating to said selecting act,

recovering of one or more descriptions in said document from said
context data,

formulating said question from recovered descriptions, and
Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
3
outputting said question to said search engine for searching data not
derived from said multimedia content.

Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Goldberg US 5,655,117 Aug. 5, 1997
Bergman US 6,564,263 B1 May 13, 2003

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement;
however, the rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (Mailed
October 11, 2007).
The Examiner rejected claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Goldberg and Bergman.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Appellants argue claims 1-14 as a group based on the arguments set
forth for claim 5 (App. Br., ¶¶ 6-10). We will, therefore, treat claims 2-14 as
standing or falling with claim 5.
Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
4
We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph,
the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has
grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board
must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.”)

35 U.S.C. §103
Issue 1
With respect to claim 5, Appellants argue Goldberg indexes a
multimedia stream in an MIFF file and that data has to be extracted to
display the available targets to the user (App. Br. 6, § B.). Appellants
contend using the MIFF file to display available targets to the user as taught
by Goldberg differs from the recited extracting context data relating to a
selection, from the multimedia contents (App. Br. 6, § B.).
The Examiner finds Goldberg scans the MIFF file for a list of indexed
targets which are then displayed to a user (Ans. 11). Thus, the Examiner
finds scanning the file and displaying the list are extracting “context data”
(id.). The Examiner asserts Appellants are arguing limitations not recited in
the claim (id.).
Issue 1: Have Appellants met the burden of showing the Examiner
erred in finding Goldberg teaches or suggests extracting context data related
to a selection, from the multimedia content?

Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
5
Issue 2
Appellants argue Goldberg does not disclose formulating the question
from recovered descriptions (App. Br. 8, § C.). Instead, Appellants contend,
the query of the MIFF file has been pre-formulated at the time the
multimedia content was indexed into a MIFF file not at the time of selection
of the target (App. Br. 8-9, § C.). Additionally, Appellants argue the
parameters Goldberg uses to qualify the search are not recovered in any way
as they are finite instances pre-selected for the user (App. Br. 9, § C.).
The Examiner finds the claim recites formulating the question from
recovered descriptions, not from the recovered descriptions (Ans. 12).
Thus, Appellants are arguing limitations not in the claim (id.).

Issue 2: Have Appellants met the burden of showing the Examiner
erred in finding Goldberg teaches or suggests formulating a question from
recovered descriptions?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Appellants’ Invention
(1) Appellants’ invention is directed toward a method and system
for automatically formulating questions based on a user selection in
multimedia content so the user does not have to formulate the question
himself (Abstract and Spec. 1, ll. 23-25).
Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
6
(2) Multimedia content may be associated with an MPEG-7
document which permits making searches in the multimedia content but is
applicable to other video formats including MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-
4 for example that describe multimedia contents (Spec. 1, ll. 11-13 and Spec.
7, ll. 5-7). By way of example, the multimedia content C is an MPEG-4
video, the content reader DEC-C is an MPEG-4 decoder, the document D is
an MPEG-7 document, and the document reader DEC-D is an MPEG-7
decoder (Spec. 4, ll. 9-11).
(3) When the user makes a selection, context data (e.g., current
reading time and/or object identifier) is extracted from the content (Abstract
and Spec. 4, ll. 12-28).
(4) A tree-like structure of a document D of multimedia content C
is organized into hierarchical levels, each level having nodes and each node
on each succeeding level containing a part of the content of the previous
level’s node from which it depends (Spec. 4, l. 29 – Spec. 5, l. 8).
(5) The nodes of the tree-like structure advantageously comprise
descriptions which are instances of descriptors (a descriptor is a
representation of a characteristic of all or part of the multimedia content)
(Spec. 5, l. 9-11). The MPEG-7 standard includes many descriptors
including, for example, the start and end time of a video segment (Spec. 5, ll.
15-18).
(6) Descriptions that are instances of the descriptors are recovered
for formulating the question (Spec. 5, ll. 22-23).
Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
7
Goldberg’s Invention
(7) Goldberg describes a method and system for providing
information regarding content of a multimedia stream by indexing the
stream (Abstract).
(8) When a video index file in a media index file frame (MIFF)
format is to be queried to select particular targets of interest, first the MIFF
file is scanned for a list of indexed targets (col. 10, ll. 1-5 and Fig. 7, block
710). The list of indexed targets is displayed for a user who may then
identify a particular target or set of targets for searching (col. 10, ll. 5-8 and
Fig. 7, block 712).
(9) Various other parameters including a particular segment of
frames in the video stream, a particular time range within the video stream,
or other search criteria, may be used to qualify a particular search (col. 10, ll.
8-12).
(10) Once the search request is received, representational chunks in
the MIFF file are scanned to find the requested target or set of targets (col.
10, ll. 12-15, Fig. 7, block 714). If a corresponding set of targets is found, a
list of frames is displayed and if requested, the frames in which the
requested targets were found are displayed (col. 10, ll. 15-19 and Fig. 7,
block 716).

Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
8
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During prosecution
before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05 (CCPA 1969).

Obviousness
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants argue Goldberg does not extract context data from the
multimedia content (App. Br. 6. § B.). Since “context data” is not defined in
Appellants’ Specification, we shall use the plain and ordinary meaning of
Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
9
“context” which is “the interrelated conditions in which something exists or
occurs. See Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 250 (Tenth Ed.
2000). Thus, we find “context data” is interrelated data in which something
exists or occurs. Based on this definition, we find a particular target or set of
targets, a list of the targets, and the representation chunks are all context
data. Additionally, we find an MIFF is multimedia content as Appellants
have defined multimedia content as being video in a video format and MIFF
is a video format just as MPEG-4 and MPEG-7 are (FF 1 and FF 2).
Further, we find, taking the plain and ordinary meaning, “extract” means to
draw forth or to withdraw by physical or chemical process. See Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 412 (Tenth Ed. 2000).
Golberg teaches scanning for a list of indexed targets and displaying
the list for a user (FF 6). The user may identify a particular target or set of
targets for searching and may further limit the search based on various other
parameters (FF 6 and FF 7). Once the search request is received, the MIFF
is scanned to find the target or set of targets and the list of frames containing
the target(s) is displayed (FF 8).
Thus, we find that since the MIFF is scanned for a list of targets
which are then displayed, it is inherent that the list must be extracted (drawn
forth or withdrawn) from the MIFF. Further, we find the list of targets (and
targets themselves) is displayed in response to a user selecting to perform a
query of the video index file for selecting particular targets of interest (id.).
Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
10
Thus, Goldberg teaches extracting the list of targets (“context data”)
from the MIFF (“multimedia content”) based on a query (a “selecting act”).
Note claim 5 recites only “selecting by the user in said multimedia content”
without any further details as to what is selected (See also analogous
language in claims 1, 9, 10, and 11).
Therefore, we find Goldberg teaches extracting context data from
multimedia content relating to a selecting act.

Issue 2
Claim 5 recites that the question is formulated from recovered
descriptions (See also analogous language in claims 1, 9, 10, and 11). We
note recovered descriptions, as recited in the “formulating said question
from recovered descriptions” element of claim 5 (and analogously claims 1,
9, 10, and 11), does not have an antecedent basis as noted by the Examiner
(Ans. 12, § C.).
Turning to the claim language, descriptions are defined by Appellants
as instances of descriptors which are a representation of a characteristic of
all or part of the multimedia content (FF 4). Goldberg teaches a user
identifies a particular target or set of targets (FF 6). The user may use
various other parameters to qualify a particular search (FF 7). In Goldberg,
a query is created based on identification of a particular target or set of
targets as well as various other parameters (FF 8 and FF 9). We find the
descriptions are the parameters in Goldberg.
Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
11
We additionally find that in response to the user’s input and various
parameters, inherently, a question is formulated based on parameters
recovered from representation chunks to provide search results. For
example, if the user requests targets within a certain time frame, the
computer will formulate a question to determine if the selected time frame
matches the time frame recovered from the representation chunk (FF 10).
Therefore, we find Goldberg teaches formulating a question from
recovered descriptions.2

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude
Appellants have not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in
finding Goldberg teaches or suggests extracting context data related to a
selection, from the multimedia content.
We further conclude Appellants have not met the burden of showing
the Examiner erred in finding Goldberg teaches or suggests formulating a

2 We note that claim 5 does not set forth who or what is performing the
method or any of the steps of the method. Additionally, we note unless the
steps of a method actually recite an order in which the step must be
performed, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one. Interactive
Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2001). See also Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369-71
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (district court erred in claim construction by reading a step
order from the written description into the claims).

Appeal 2008-003906
Application 10/487,734
12
question from recovered descriptions. Accordingly, we conclude Appellants
have not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5
for obviousness over Goldberg and Bergman.
Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 9,
10, and 11 and their dependent claims were based on claim 5, claims 1-4 and
claims 6-14 fall with claim 5. Therefore, we conclude Appellants have not
met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4 and
6-14.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Goldberg and Bergman is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk

Corporate Patent Counsel
Philips Electronics North America Corporation
Po Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510